It has been repeatedly said here that he had the position of an adviser to Himmler. Did you make any observations in this respect? What can you tell us?
A. I was once personal witness of one such a report on mail by Dr. Brandt when submitting mail. I was very uncertain of myself and I wanted to know how he was dealing with this report in order to get some idea of how it was done. I can remember exactly that on the one hand I was very depressed and on the other hand I was quite satisfied. I could not observe any advisory aid on the part of Dr. Brandt during that report on mail. The observation I made was that Himmler gave Brandt his orders in the same short manner according to the contents of the letter, as he did in my case too. I think that it is completely out of the question that Dr. Brandt was Himmler's adviser. I an convinced on the other hand that considering his extraordinary stenographic ability he was an extraordinary stenographer. Dr. Brandt was one of the most skillful stenographers of Germany. That dates back to his youth.
Q. Do you want to say anything else?
A. Yes, I want to supplement this description by citing an experience which I had in the year 1941, that is, after the war had started against Russia. When the war started Himmler prohibited Brandt from taking any female secretaries along with him. In that case there was neither a secretary for Himmler nor for Brandt. Himmler expected Brandt to use all of the male help of our office and deal with all additional work. At that time I was detailed to the front in Russia where I received a letter from Dr. Brandt where he complained about this additional overburden of work in a very distressed manner. I was very glad not to be there at the time and I merely sympathized with him.
Q. Now did he type these things himself or what did he do?
A. He then had to take all shorthand dictations from Himmler and then had to re--dictate them to one of our younger workers. Of course, he did not type himself.
A. How long was Brandt's working day?
A. It started at seven o'clock in the morning and ended rarely before midnight, sometimes even later. As a rule I only got to bed at one or two o'clock at night. Himmler expected us to be ready for work just as long as he was still up and was staying behind his desk.
Q. Do you want to maintain the statement that you have just made, even if one considers that Rudolf Brandt formally had a rather high position. He was a Standartenfuehrer after all and was the so-called head of the ministerial office and had a position of ministerial counsellor and an outsider hearing these titles would consider it quite unlikely that Brandt would be employed just as a first stenographer.
A. I am quite clear in my mind that this description sounds very improbable, but I can only describe it as it actually was. I hope that during the course of your further questions I shall have the opportunity to show because of what psychological reasons it is explained in Brandt's nature himself that this situation arose. But a great influence on that was exercised by the special method of work used by Himmler. Dr. Brandt, for instance, was never a participant in any conference. He would have immediately told me about any such event as being something extraordinary, or I would have heard it from some of the other workers there. It was the rule that during any conferences of Himmler Dr. Brandt night perhaps be called in to the conference room at some time during the conference in order to receive any order, or it is probable that after the end of such a conference Himmler would call him and would shortly dictate the points which came up during the conference. He would dictate the essential contents of any letters in cases where not Himmler but Dr. Brandt had to pass on the result of any such conference.
Q. What were your observations concerning the completeness of the contents of the files; that is I am speaking of the case where certain files were shown to Rudolf Brandt and that Himmler had conferences on the subject of such files; now I ask you whether the contents of the files alone, without knowledge of the conferences, would make it clear exactly what it was about?
A. No, the connection was only apparent in very rare cases, not as a rule. That can be explained by the division of these two registries. Himmler did not have to recognize any connections of matters from the files, he got it all during conferences, or it came from his own head whenever he had to give any orders. I was often very dissatisfied about the fact that so little could be seen from the files. I only cite as example the institution of the voluntary divisions of the Waffen SS, an institution which comprized members from numerous European countries.
Q. Will you please be brief in answering this question?
A. Yes, I just want to say I was often ashamed of having comrades tell me, "How come you don't know that, you are with Himmler." As a result from the files no connection could be realized. In addition, considering the huge influx of mail, very extensive correspondence could hardly be read, and they could only be read at a time when Himmler was already done with them and sent them back for registry.
Q. Now, witness, in the daily mail aid you see incoming letters dealing with medical experiments or medical research with the use of human beings?
A. I can remember one such case: Two Dutchmen thought that they had found a special drug against tuberculosis and then carried on accordingly experiments in Oranienburg, otherwise I found no indications which led me to believe that medical experiments were carried out on human beings within the SS. I believe to be able to say that these matters, of which I now gained knowledge on the basis of documents, must have been completely on the border-line of Dr. Brandt's sphere of work.
Q. Then how do you explain the fact that certain letters went through the hands of brandt and mentioned his name, and these dealt with human experiment, did that have something to do with his special high position or because he was considered a confident of Himmler; or what explanation can you give us?
A. I now have had an opportunity to look through the Documents here and I have had an opportunity to gain knowledge about the subject matter. I have been thinking for a long time now how it could have been possible that these letters did not come to my knowledge and I believe that I am able to say that on the one hand the extraordinarily strict secrecy exercised by Himmler played the decisive role and that on the other hand there were also few technical factors which have to be taken into consideration. I...
Q. Do you have something else to say then Mr. Meine? Then I should like to ask you about something else. You worked for years in the environments of Himmler and Brandt, now I should like to ask you what influence did the personality of Himmler have on his close environment including Rudolf Brandt?
A. That is a very difficult question for me to answer, for we have now learned how Himmler distorted the picture of humanity, how he violated the fundamental principles of humanity, the principle of which our entire European culture is based.
If I am now to state what influence Himmler exercised on those people who with pure conscience and pure heart approached him and got to know him more closely, I am forced to tell about impressions that I had and to cite experiences which are completely in contradiction to what terrible things we know about him today. Since May of 1945 when I was interned in a British Internment Camp, I asked myself more than once, and I considered seriously, how it could have come about that we had not realized these things earlier, how it could have been possible that we misinterpreted the character of Himmler so fundamentally. I asked myself whether I was the victim of an illusion, and it was a decisive question for my own moral existence to gain certainty whether I could rely on my heart or brain, or whether I had a.lso to run the danger of making such a catastrophic error in the future.
As terrible as it may sound today, I can only say that by personally dealing with Himmler, and by his utterances and talking there was no indicate which could lead one to recognize these terrible methods which he used in order to arrive at these aims, which he seemed to represent in such a pure and dignified manner before our eyes.
Now and again my attention was drawn to reports by the foreign press and radio, but the examinations which were carried on regularly on order of Himmler have always proven the incorrectness of such reports. I therefore regret to have to say that these report were no longer credible for us. In addition to that were our memories of the horror stories of the First World War, therefore, the reports of this last world war did not seen credible either. Himmler's personal manner was without fear. I experienced that during the heavy bombing attack in the year of 1944. He was always ready to help, always polite, always sympathetic toward us and he was always ready to speak to us and express his thought. Himmler was a brilliant conversationalist, at no time was he a fanatic, he was always generous and ready to appreciate someone else's opinion, that was true in the case of officers of scientists, officials or SS leaders. They often told me how happy we can be that we had the opportunity to work in the vicinity of such a man.
When Himmler developed his thoughts everything had a logical significance everything was a matter of course, he did not shy from approaching such questions which came up during the war to every responsible human being. It was often apparent how he helped his listeners, how he relieved them of the burden which was on them by merely expressing his thoughts. It was interesting to hear his attitude toward religion and the individual freedom of conscience human beings. He considered the concentration camps as a sharp instrument for the execution of stern political necessities. He said at the same time, however, that there was an enormous responsibility connected with him on that account. It was interesting to hear the way in which he saw the problem of the German race and how he clearly and unequivocally rejected the thought of the claim for German leadership. Everyone of his thoughts were enlightening and convincing and showed Himmler in our eyes as a man who with honest heart endeavored to deal with the questions of our times and was trying to find a way in which he could justify to himself and his own conscience.
I could prove these assertions by giving many examples, examples which I remember exactly. Since a growing young man, I wanted to understand under all circumstances how the world reflected itself in the mind of that man.
I saw nothing wrong in that.
Q. Did he talk to you about the question of concentration camps and experiments on human beings; did he discuss it with you perhaps?
A. Never about experiments. In the Spring of 1942 after having returned from Russia as a soldier I asked him about concentration camps. I told him at that time that I could not understand how we could burden ourselves with concentration camps and with all this police organization where we in the SS had to set a good example, and where the educational aim which we set ourselves in the SS was to extend throughout generations and was to use every bit of energy of the SS. He became very thoughtful then and tried to explain to me for what reasons the institution of concentration camps was necessary.
Q. Witness, may I interrupt you for a moment. Himmler was considered by large sections of the German population as a man of great severity and ruthlessness. I will not determine the year in which this opinion was held - but I ask you, was this opinion not shared by the personal staff -- by you and Brandt?
A. Yes, but we made a different experience personally.
Q. And you would repeat what you have just said?
A. Yes.
Q. Or do you want to explain it?
A. I want to continue in my description of Himmler. I wanted to say -
MR. HARDY: May it plea so your Honor -- this character reference for Himmler is immaterial in this trial. Unfortunately we don't have Keinrich Himmler in the dock. I think the witness should confine himself to testify pertaining to the defendant Rudolf Brandt?
DR. KAUFMANN: May I say something about that, Mr. President?
I almost feared that the prosecution would raise this objection - but then, I believe one cannot see this case properly; this case has not only an outer objective side but this case of Brandt with its many signatures on these terrible documents - has an internal significant side too, and one can understand it only - can understand how he came to make mistakes only if one sees under what influence he was. This witness does not intend to say anything about Himmler for which he cannot take the responsibility, and he sets himself absolutely at distance from Himmler, and he describes only what he has observed, and he tells us how Himmler, with his double nature, influenced his environment and how he was able to draw Brandt in his spell. Brandt became a victim of Himmler. That is one side of my defense as I see it, and I would not be able to carry out this defense, if I were not permitted to show through the mouth of a witness how this terrible man Himmler was able to give an entirely different impression of himself to his environment. And besides, we have nearly finished.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands the pertinence, of a good deal of this testimony as relevant to the opinion of the character of the defendant Rudolf Brandt. For that reason we have permitted the witness to continue to testify concerning Himmler but it would seem quite appropriate to suggest that it might have been fairly adequate and covered. Counsel nay proceed.
DR. KAUFMANN: Mr. President, I thank you. I shall go on to another subject now.
BY DR. KAUFMANN:
Q. Witness, you know Brandt for years; you were able to observe him daily, and I assume that you know him as a comrade. Perhaps you can tell us some observation of how he thought concerning the problem of humanity.
The documents which we have here in themselves are very incriminative. But what can you tell of Brandt's personality; how did you see Brandt; would you ever have expected him to take an active part in such crimes against humanity? That would more or less be my last question.
A. Dr. Brandt dealth with the numerous pleas coming from the German people, with great love. Doubtless he attacked great importance to see that not one of these pleas was overlooked, if several points were mentioned in the same letter. In the beginning I was loss careful with thatwhen I dealth with these questions -- and I was often corrected by him on that score. He often told me whether I wasn't in a position -- to place myself in the position of these human beings who, here filled with confidence, are expressing a plea and which I was just dealing with in a superficial manner. Dr. Brandt was always very anxious to see that everything was settle peacefully. He was anxious to see that quarrels were avoided. I was often in a position to observe that he preferred disadvantage to himself rather than causing disadvantage to anyone else. In addition, he was so modest in his way of life. Dr. Brandt never owned a car. He never owned his own house. As for salary - he, because he wasn't considered as an officer, was in a worse position than comrades of the same rank who were on the staff. He was also open and honest and at not time did I hear him say anything bad about somebody else in his absence. He didn't like such talk. He didn't care for slander. As for the thought that he would ever participate in crimes -- it shall never occur to me.
DR. KAUFMANN: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now recess until 0930 o'clock Monday morning.
(The Tribunal recessed until 24 Mar 47 at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal I in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 24 March 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the judges of Military Tribunal 1.
Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
Counsel may proceed.
AUGUST MEINE - Resumed.
HR. HARDY: Defense counsel has no further direct, your Honor. I would like to cross examine at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness August Meine is still on the stand. The witness is reminded that he is still under oath.
CROSS EXAMINATION.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q Witness, the Defendant Rudolf Brandt in his capacity as chief of the office of the personnel staff to Himmler had the authority to sign letters or orders on behalf of Himmler, did he not?
A Yes, when Himmler ordered him to.
Q Is it true that you in your capacity in that same office had the authority to sign letters or orders in behalf of Himmler?
A. I had that only if Himmler ordered me to, in other words, when I was representing Dr. Brandt.
Q. How far did this authority of Rudolf Brandt or yourself acting instead of Rudolf Brandt, extend, that is, did Rudolf Brandt sign letters or orders on behalf of Himmler pertaining to top secret and secret matters?
A. That can't be answered in general. That depended on whether Himmler issued the necessary order. I had no right at all, for example, during Himmler's absence, to issue any orders for him and I am convinced that the Defendant Rudolf Brandt also did not have such plenipotentiary power.
Q. Now, did the Defendant Rudolf Brandt have the authority to sign Himmler's name?
A. I have just said that when Himmler was absent he did not have that right. A necessary prerequisite was an order from Himmler.
Q. You have stated in the course of your direct examination that you have perused several of the documents in evidence in this case, and no doubt you have seen many documents which contain the signature of Rudolf Brandt. These documents were in the form of orders, in many instances they followed instructions and others. Now, to what extent could Rudolf Brandt issue orders himself?
A. On his own Dr. Brandt could not issue any orders.
Q. We have in evidence, witness, several instances where Rudolf Brandt has signed orders issuing instructions to men like Dr. Rascher for instance. How do you account for such a thing as that?
A. In my testimony on Friday I tried to make it clear according to what policies Himmler did his work, and how in the technical aspect what Rudolf Brandt's work was, and what mine was when I represented him. I pointed out at the time that Himmler did not always wish to appear under his own name. It frequently happened to me that he gave me an order to transmit to another office and told me that he was not going to sign it but that I myself was to sign it, if this letter for example, was not directed to a chief of a main office.
But the essential point is that even in the case of those letters that I personally signed, the contents of the letter had been determined by Himmler. And in most of the cases he formulated these contents so precisely that I simply had to add either the salutation or the conclusion. And I believe this must also have been the case with Dr. Brandt. I have already mentioned that I was once present when he delivered a report about his mail.
Q. Witness, I believe in direct examination you stated that any of the particulars concerning the subject which is at issue here in this case were not known to you during the time that you were in the personal office. Now, as you know from the indictment the prosecution has charged that freezing and high altitude experiments were conducted at the Dachau concentration camp. Did you ever hear about those when you were working in the office of Rudolf Brandt?
A. I did know that the Reichsfuehrer-SS had given Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher the opportunity to carry out experiments but I did not know any of the details.
Q. You had no idea that those experiments were criminal in nature, witness?
A. No, of that I knew nothing.
Q. Do you know that they were using concentration camp inmates for these experiments?
A. Yes, that I did know and that was in fact generally known, that concentration camp inmates were being used for experiments. On Friday I named the experiment that the Dutch brothers Zahn carried out in Oraniehburg in 1937, and I also know Dr. Rascher personally.-- I can't remember what year it was, might have been 1942. I met him in the personnel office.
Q. Do you know about the malaria experiments at Dachau?
A. No
Q. Do you know about the Lost gas experiments, that is, mustard gas experiments which were conducted at Natzweiler?
A. No.
Q. Do you know about the sulfanilamide experiments that were conducted at the Ravensbrucck concentration camp on Polish women?
A. No.
Q. In other words, you have no knowledge, specific knowledge, of any of these particular experiments that I have outlined, is that right?
A. No.
Q. Then I assume that Rudolf Brandt could well have issued these instructions, orders, and passed on the instructions of Himmler without your knowledge. Is that right?
A. That depends on the way the way the work was organized technically in the personal staff. I have already said on Friday that we of the personal staff had two main departments in our office, a secret registration and a public one, and it was the rule that the orders to maintain secrecy were most strictly observed. The secret letters were, as a rule, already sealed in the field command office of Himmler's, because they were entrusted to ordinary men for more than one night who sent them to Berlin. It was therefore the rule that these letters that I had nothing to do with, personally, were sent directly to these registry offices. Only the so-called open 'Folders with signature' were put into envelopes by clerks in our office, sealed and mailed.
Q Now, witness, in connection with the freezing experiments at Dachau, did you know that Rascher used women for rewarming purposes?
A No.
Q Now, witness, I am going to ask you to look at this document.
MR. HARDY: This is Document No. 1619-PS, Your Honor, which has been admitted into evidence as Prosecution Exhibit No. NO-2 -- pardon me -Exhibit No. 87 which will be found in Document Book No. 3 on page 20.
Q Will you read that document, witness?
A "To SS-:Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, Oranienburg. SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Brandt asks you to give instructions for the four women ordered by the Reichsfuehrer-SS to be put at the disposal of Dr. Rascher to be sent from Ravensbrueck to Dachau," signed by myself.
Q That is signed by you, isn't it?
A Yes.
Q Did you ever hear of Professor Dr. Hirth, witness?
A Yes, I heard of Dr. Hirth.
Q Did you ever hear of Dr. Wimmer?
A Yes. I know that Dr. Wimmer was to assist at experiments, and I can remember that I on Dr. Brandt's orders sent an order to the SS Main Office to the effect that Dr. Wimmer should be released from his previous job and should be made available to a scientist, but I can't remember whether it was Professor Hirth.
Q Well, now, you didn't know that Dr. Wimmer was to work with Professor Dr. Hirth in his "lost" experiments at the Natzweiler Concentration Camp?
A No. I can not remember that.
Q Witness, I don't know what sort of a filing system you and Rudolf Brandt had, but I can well imagine that all letters pertaining to the same subject were filed in the same folder, were they not?
A No. As I have already said on Friday, there were two registry office a secret one and an open one, so that one complex matter, that had previously been filed away in the open registry office, at the moment when a secret communication arrived, this secret communication was put in the secret registry office.
That is why we were unable to know just what was going on simply from looking at the files. We could only have access to what was immediate at our grasp, and there was always a great deal of trouble for us whenever we wanted to collect the two parts, the secret part and the open part of anyone matter.
I many times made an effort to look up matters that particularly intened me, matters of a general political nature, for instance, but this, too, was very difficult, because at the moment when a military office wrote something in connection with this matter, it went to the chief adjutant, or if the police took a part in it, the letter went to the police adjutant. I already pointed out that for Himmler these difficulties were completely irrelevant. He know the connection. He carried on the conversations and conferences personally and did not have to rely on the correspondence, and for us it was of no concern.
I once made this experiment: I pointed out to him that this system mail great difficulties for us when we wanted to get an overall picture, and that it should be possible that simply for practical purposes some change should be brought about. Himmler replied that he had previously no objections to the way his instructions were carried out and, consequently, he saw no reason for effecting any changes here. Hitler's order to maintain secrecy was known to me; it was valid for me and for every German man and woman, and so also it certainly had to be valid in his own staff.
Q Well, now, you mentioned a letter you wrote to the SS Main Office.
ML. HARDY: That letter, Your Honor, is Document No. NO-196, Prosecute Exhibit No. 261 which is found in Document Book No. 13 on page 25.
Q Is that the letter you wrote?
A Yes, that is the letter.
Q You say, the last phrase in the first paragraph, that Dr. Wimmer is to assist SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Hirth in a series of experiments. You didn't know that those were "lost" experiments on concentration camp inmates at Natzweiler, is that right?
A No, I did not know that.
MR. HARDY: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any redirect examination of this witness by counsel for Rudolf Brandt?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
DR. KAUFMANN: Kaufmann for Brandt.
BY DR. KAUFMANN:
Q Witness, you were just asked questions regarding Document No. 1619, Exhibit No. 87. You saw this document which was concerned with the fact that four women were to be used in a concentration camp but you did not make any statement about this document at that time. You had previously said that you were given no orientation about details of experiments on human beings.
Now, this letter, this teletype, seems to contradict that. Consequently, We should like to ask you once again to state your views on this document. do you remember this document?
A Yes, I still remember it.
Q What do you know of the details of this document? How did it come to this, and what did you take this document to mean?
A I can not remember the details and the circumstances under which I received the instruction from Dr. Brandt and under which I mailed it, but it happened in so many cases that I received instructions from Dr. Brandt that I believe I can now retrospectively reconstruct what the situation must have been and why this letter is signed by me.
I have already described when I was talking about Himmler's special method of carrying on work that he limited himself to clearly formulated orders and instructions. He gave no explanations. So far as I was obliged ** expand on his orders, I had to do that more or less on my own. The same ** true of Dr. Brandt. I assume that here in this case Dr. Brandt received the order from Himmler to take care of these four Polish women and that a few minutes later because I was in his office, he in order to make his work easier told me orally, "Please send a teletype to Brigadefuehrer Gluecks and arrange for that."
Since I know in general that human-being experiments were being carried out, and since as a matter of principle human-being experiments continued to be arranged for, for example, in that the research workers carried out experiments on themselves, or used their collaborators for such experiments, or used personal friends of theirs for such experiments, and since, furthermore, I knew about the series of experiments in Oranienburg that the prisoners came in droves to volunteer for these experiments, because from that moment on they no longer had to work but received better food, so it was that during these years I did not become syspicious.
I was at that time not familiar with the terrible background of these experiments. Even in the formal issuing of orders for these experiments, I myself was involved, and it was only here in seeing these documents that I found out about it.
Q. Witness, you just said that you had heard that prisoners had volunteered in droves for these experiments, would you like to make that more precise?
A. In 1942, two Dutchmen, the brothers Zahn pointed out to Himmler that they believed that they had found a drug to cure T.B. Himmler gave them an opportunity to experiment in Oranienburg, but since these Dutchmen were not acquainted with German conditions and also wanted to receive some of the credit themselves, they were always very proud of being directly under Himmler, and used every occasion, even when it was only a question of minor details, such as getting their ration cards, as I say, they took over occasion to speak to Himmler personally. Since, of course, what was not possible they come to me in Berlin, because I was in charge of receiving Himmler's visitors. *** these occasions the directors of the series of experiments, namely, the Zahn brothers, told me the previously mentioned details.
Q. In other words, you want to say that you did not know that these four women were to be used in any experiments on concentration camp inmates, either to be used directly or to be used in connection with experiments which were to be carried out on some third person.
A. No, I know that Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher on orders from the Luftwaffe was carrying out experiments but I knew none of the details, and I believe I have already made it clear that I had no suspicion that these women were to be used for criminal purposes.
Q. Were you ever in a concentration camp?
A. Yes, in January 1943, I was in Oranienburg on Himmler's orders, because he at that time had ascertained I had never visited a concentration ***.
Q. Let me interject a question witness. Do you know whether Rudolf Brandt ever visited a concentration camp?
A. I never spoke to him on the subject. I assumed so, but I cannot remember whether I then gave him any report on my visit, because my visit to Oranienburg brought out nothing, sensational. My observations on the whole were confined to what I had heard about concentration camps from Himmler.
JUDGE SEBRING: Just a moment, will you repeat again the date upon which you visited the concentration camp?
WITNESS: January, 1943. Let me correct what I said? It could have been the first days of February, 1943.
JUDGE SEBRING: But it was in the year 1943?
WITNESS: Yes.
MR. HARDY: That is the question I had, Your Honor.
BY DR. KAUFMANN:
Q. You only visited a concrntration camp once or several times during 1943?
A. I did not visit any other concentration camp but Frequently I visited the Central Commandantur of Oranienburg, because there were good shoe and clothing shop.
Q. Now to got to the crux of this matter - did you visit the camp itself or just the manufacturing units in the camp?
A. No, I visited the whole camp. I was in barracks in which men slept in bunks two tiers high. I was in the kitchen in which the food was prepared for outside details and I myself ate this food. I went to the cement factory bread factory, the meat factory, and all other economic units that belonged there.
Q. Is it true that Himmler ordered you specially to visit a concentration camp if you therefore had not seen one?
A. After, in the year 1941 I returned, from Russia, I spoke to Himmler on the question of concentration camps in January, 1942. This I mentioned on Friday. In the meantime one year had elapse, and he must have remembered the conversation, and when he found out again that I had still not visited a concentration camp he told me to do so, Oranienburg was very close at hand, I should not postpone this visit any longer.
Q. Now, to close let me ask you: Do you wish to state here under oath that you did not know what the situation was in relation to this document which was shown to you? t
A. That I can maintain.